MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Groups - ebMSv3-Whitepaper.doc uploaded
I agree this change may be considered editorial. The technical import
of the updated sentence aligns (stops conflicting) with our previous
technical discussions and does not introduce a new technical discussion.
A couple of even-more-editorial (mostly) items:
* In the third paragraph of the Introduction, last sentence, "detailed
later" should be "detailed earlier" since the previous Status section
describes the comment mechanisms.
* The Introduction could be a bit more explicit about requesting
reviewers' priority suggestions. We are interested specifically in
suggested priorities and TC volunteers, not just generally in "comments
and contributions" to this document.
* In item 3 of Section 1.2, I would say "release schedules for
WS-Reliability are known but may slip" or some such. The schedules are
not "unknown" because they were published as part of that TC Charter.
* In Section 1.3.1 (why is this a subsection?), items 3, 4 and 5 from
section 1.2 would also be appropriate. If this is controversial, we can
come back to it later rather than introduce something problematic at
this late date.
* I would answer the question in item 3 of Section 2.1 as follows: No,
the primary restriction on payloads when using this option is that they
must be in XML format without processing instructions, document
declarations or XML declarations and should be in an explicit namespace.
The WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 may further restrict the contents of a SOAP
Body to a single top level element however.
* In Section 3.4, our favourite "negation" for "negotiation" typographic
error remains.
thanx,
doug
On 30-Nov-03 08:23, Dale Moberg wrote:
> I think we should definitely make the change before public release.
>
> It is an editorial matter because we all explicitly discussed the
> change, and just managed to transpose. Are you asking us for another
> ballot (vote) or do we just need some one more person to vote? I assume
> the latter.
>
> Dale
>
>